Evidence for God from Science

I am not suggesting sexual urges are uncontrollable, I am suggesting that being a homosexual is not something that is controllable, don't confuse sexual urges with being homosexual, they are not the same thing.

Of course they are not the same thing but you seem to be implying that is the issue.
We can't control what we are BUT we can control what we do.
When a mental disorder is treated the treatments will depend on the disorder of course BUT they all, typically, start with control of the "symptoms". ie: urges and such.

To treat a pedophile the first step is to treat the urges then you treat the cause ( be it traumatic past experience, chemical imbalance, etc).

If homosexuality and gender issues is a mental disorder ( and these seems to be more evidence pointing to that it is than evidence pointing to it being "natural), then they should be treated as such.
It should be noted that it is NOT in the best interest of the person to tell them, "It's fine, perfectly normal to feel this way, indulge yourself" and that is what is being done.
Why?
lets be fully honest here and admit that the reason is:
What harm is done?
What two (or more) consenting adults do is their business, no one is being harmed, etc, etc.

But the evidence is there that this is NOT the case.

Like any mental disorder in which the "only person being harmed is the individual", it should not diminish the serious problem that it is.
Political correctness be damned.

Let's be honest here, it is not politically correct to compare homosexuality to pedophilia in the west ( I say the west because in some cultures pedophile is acceptable) because, as the party line goes, no one is being harmed when two males or females love each other BUT someone is being harmed when pedophilia happens.
And I agree that, at least, the degree of harm is very different.
BUT, no one would argue that a pedophile doesn't need help is he/she doesn't involve themselves with a child and keeps to themselves, right?
No harm is being done to the individual BUT we would still want he/she to be treated, correct?
Why?
Because deep down we KNOW that a disorder like that, urges to do things that are NOT NATURAL, NOT in the best interest of the individual and society, needs to be treated.

The study shows that this applies to homosexuality and gender identity issues.
People that suffer from this need help, they need to be accepted as people that have a disorder and helped to become better.

In our desire to not upset the socially correct order, we are not helping people that need our help.

PaulSacramento wrote:

I am not suggesting sexual urges are uncontrollable, I am suggesting that being a homosexual is not something that is controllable, don't confuse sexual urges with being homosexual, they are not the same thing.

Of course they are not the same thing but you seem to be implying that is the issue.
We can't control what we are BUT we can control what we do.
When a mental disorder is treated the treatments will depend on the disorder of course BUT they all, typically, start with control of the "symptoms". ie: urges and such.

To treat a pedophile the first step is to treat the urges then you treat the cause ( be it traumatic past experience, chemical imbalance, etc).

If homosexuality and gender issues is a mental disorder ( and these seems to be more evidence pointing to that it is than evidence pointing to it being "natural), then they should be treated as such.
It should be noted that it is NOT in the best interest of the person to tell them, "It's fine, perfectly normal to feel this way, indulge yourself" and that is what is being done.
Why?
lets be fully honest here and admit that the reason is:
What harm is done?
What two (or more) consenting adults do is their business, no one is being harmed, etc, etc.

But the evidence is there that this is NOT the case.

Like any mental disorder in which the "only person being harmed is the individual", it should not diminish the serious problem that it is.
Political correctness be damned.

Let's be honest here, it is not politically correct to compare homosexuality to pedophilia in the west ( I say the west because in some cultures pedophile is acceptable) because, as the party line goes, no one is being harmed when two males or females love each other BUT someone is being harmed when pedophilia happens.
And I agree that, at least, the degree of harm is very different.
BUT, no one would argue that a pedophile doesn't need help is he/she doesn't involve themselves with a child and keeps to themselves, right?
No harm is being done to the individual BUT we would still want he/she to be treated, correct?
Why?
Because deep down we KNOW that a disorder like that, urges to do things that are NOT NATURAL, NOT in the best interest of the individual and society, needs to be treated.

The study shows that this applies to homosexuality and gender identity issues.
People that suffer from this need help, they need to be accepted as people that have a disorder and helped to become better.

In our desire to not upset the socially correct order, we are not helping people that need our help.

For me, a fear of men, coupled with human needs and a very persuasive girlfriend
led me to experiment with lesbian sex.

Physically, it is very, well, never mind. Emotionally, not so much.

Also, seemed to me like trying to sidestep my issues in a probably unhealthy way.

Im basically agreeing with you.

I felt like, its better for me to control urges than give in. I can do that, and have ever since.

Not everyone is good at self discipline.

Audie,
Yes, it's true that not every is good at self-control, I would say that almost NO ONE is.
But you don't have to be good at it, you simply have to know that you must try and WHY you must try.

Mental disorders are the "dark little secret" of this "enlightened age".
People with them are still treated like pariah's, still shunned by society.
Look at depression, it is a very serious problem and still is a joke for some, as it is a "bad mood" or someone is just "sad".

It seems that for many, it is better to make something that is not good for a person, for society, acceptable and "normal" than to address it as the mental disorder that it is.

The stigma of mental health problems is very real.

PaulSacramento wrote:

I am not suggesting sexual urges are uncontrollable, I am suggesting that being a homosexual is not something that is controllable, don't confuse sexual urges with being homosexual, they are not the same thing.

Of course they are not the same thing but you seem to be implying that is the issue.

No I am not, I am saying you cannot control being a homosexual.

You said

It is clear that there are vary degrees of mental disorders, some of which that the behaviour CAN be controlled.
Homosexuality is one of those.

My questions still stands.

How do you determine which ones are controllable and which ones are not, what is your yard stick that you measure this against?

Behaviour can be controlled Daniel, BEHAVIOUR.

PaulSacramento wrote:Behaviour can be controlled Daniel, BEHAVIOUR.

As a general statement that is so, kinda.

Heroin addicts, alcoholics and compulsive overeaters dont seem like they can just "choose" so easily.

Also of course, if a person sees no reason to control their urges.

I know someone who is so terrified of snakes that she once jumped out of a moving car when she saw the driver had faux-crocodile boots.

One might see if she can control her behaviour, by asking if she'd like
to pick up a snake.

Audie,
I was just trying to make clear to Daniel that what can be controlled is NOT the mental disorder but the behaviour, typically.
Pretty much any mental health doctor that has dealt with sexual behaviour will tell you they can be controlled in one way or another.
As much as we are slaves to our sexual urges ( and some more than others of course), they can be controlled.

PaulSacramento wrote:Audie,
I was just trying to make clear to Daniel that what can be controlled is NOT the mental disorder but the behaviour, typically.
Pretty much any mental health doctor that has dealt with sexual behaviour will tell you they can be controlled in one way or another.
As much as we are slaves to our sexual urges ( and some more than others of course), they can be controlled.

But you said some behaviours can be controlled which implies some cannot, stop dodging the questions by bringing up things we already know and that are irrelevant.

How do you decide which behaviours are controllable and which ones are not, what is your yard stick that you measure against?

It is clear that there are vary degrees of mental disorders, some of which that the behaviour CAN be controlled.
Homosexuality is one of those.

I am sorry, but where did I say that I would decide ??

PaulSacramento wrote:So, I spoke about this about a year ago and now the study is out:

http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/22/almos ... -is-wrong/

excert:

Here are four of the report’s most important conclusions:


The belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property—that people are ‘born that way’—is not supported by scientific evidence.

Likewise, the belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex—so that a person might be a ‘man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’—is not supported by scientific evidence.

Only a minority of children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behavior will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood. There is no evidence that all such children should be encouraged to become transgender, much less subjected to hormone treatments or surgery.

Non-heterosexual and transgender people have higher rates of mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide), as well as behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence), than the general population. Discrimination alone does not account for the entire disparity.

As one bloger put it:

How Gay Activists Will Respond to a Major Scientific Report That Refutes Their Talking Points:

https://askdrbrown.org/library/how-gay- ... rt-refutes

So, when it comes to Dr. McHugh, the script has already been written, and no matter what the scientific evidence states and no matter how carefully he has presented it, he will be viciously attacked and his research will be flatly rejected.

As for Dr. Mayer, again, my expectation is that he will be dismissed as unqualified, while his guilt by association with Dr. McHugh and Johns Hopkins will be used against him as well.

A single study is released against a backdrop of conflicting evidence? I'm not saying to therefore dismiss it, but in transparency why when a myriad of conflicting and reputable evidence scientifically suggests quite a differing conclusion would anyone grasp onto the latest 'evidence' that supports their persuasion when there is such a wealth of previous studies that can lead either way.
There is a massive body of work dedicated to this study. You can't grab onto the 'latest' as per your argument and display it as 'everything the media tells you about Sexual orientation and gender identity is wrong.
Against one study.
I will if needed cite many contradictory articles and studies.

A single study is released against a backdrop of conflicting evidence? I'm not saying to therefore dismiss it, but in transparency why when a myriad of conflicting and reputable evidence scientifically suggests quite a differing conclusion would anyone grasp onto the latest 'evidence' that supports their persuasion when there is such a wealth of previous studies that can lead either way.
There is a massive body of work dedicated to this study. You can't grab onto the 'latest' as per your argument and display it as 'everything the media tells you about Sexual orientation and gender identity is wrong.
Against one study.
I will if needed cite many contradictory articles and studies.

Please Mel, cite away.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencen ... http://www


http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486 -http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486

The LAtimes link is not working Mel.
But the other link you posted doesn't address ALL the issues of this thread.
Even if one is born gay, that doesn't make it Natural or in the best interest of the person since people can be born with many qualities that are NOT good for them that is way the study states that it should be treated as a mental disorder.
Just like any other disorder one is born with.
That said, the article from the BBC makes not that this is a THEORY ( there is no proof that it is genetic, it is a theory right now) and also notes that twins with the same genetic make up are not always both gay.
Only about 20%, so...

And a more recent study:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016 ... ter-birth/

That's a rough stab, I could back up with many more.
Which no doubt I will be compelled to do so.
Not a bad thing
My biggest science experiment is my life.
My best friend and Matron of honour is gay. With a partner and two kids. My Nephew is gay, my cousin is gay.
And I picked it with each of them years before they came out.
They are all beautiful, loving and caring souls.
I know them intimately and they are beautiful on a soulful level.
I negate the necessity to judge their lifestyles and I reserve all judgement to my Heavenly Father. He will judge accordingly and in Him I trust.